IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v64y2016i1p147-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ex Ante Welfare Analysis of Technological Change: The Case of Nitrogen Efficient Maize for African Soils

Author

Listed:
  • Genti Kostandini
  • Roberto La Rovere
  • Zhe Guo

Abstract

type="main" xml:lang="fr"> Dans la présente étude, nous analysons les répercussions potentielles du projet Improved Maize for African Soils (IMAS – maïs amélioré pour les sols africains) dans deux pays africains : le Kenya et l’Afrique du Sud. Les variétés de maïs utilisées dans le cadre du projet IMAS offrent la possibilité d'accroitre considérablement les rendements dans les régions qui utilisent peu ou pas d'engrais. Dans le cadre de notre étude, nous avons utilisé des données spatiales sur la production et sur les ménages pour déterminer le taux d'utilisation d'engrais dans les zones agroécologiques de chaque pays ainsi que les divers types de ménages qui cultivent le maïs. Les résultats de notre étude autorisent à penser que le projet IMAS permettra de dégager des avantages bruts évalués à 586 M$ US, dont 136 M$ US et 100 M$ US pour les producteurs du Kenya et de l'Afrique du Sud respectivement, ainsi que 112 M$ US et 238 M$ US supplémentaires pour les consommateurs du Kenya et de l'Afrique du Sud respectivement. Ces avantages pourraient permettre à plus d'un million de personnes d'échapper à la pauvreté dans ces deux pays d'ici 2025. Les résultats à l'échelle des ménages semblent indiquer que les ménages de petite taille installés dans les zones où l'utilisation des engrais est assez faible sont plus susceptibles de tirer des avantages importants.

Suggested Citation

  • Genti Kostandini & Roberto La Rovere & Zhe Guo, 2016. "Ex Ante Welfare Analysis of Technological Change: The Case of Nitrogen Efficient Maize for African Soils," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(1), pages 147-168, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:64:y:2016:i:1:p:147-168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/cjag.12067
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jayne, T. S. & Govereh, J. & Wanzala, M. & Demeke, M., 2003. "Fertilizer market development: a comparative analysis of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Zambia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 293-316, August.
    2. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2011. "Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2350-2390, October.
    3. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2008. "How High Are Rates of Return to Fertilizer? Evidence from Field Experiments in Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 482-488, May.
    4. Mabiso, Athur & Weatherspoon, Dave D., 2008. "Fuel and Food Tradeoffs: A Preliminary Analysis of South African Food Consumption Patterns," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6126, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Minde, I., 2008. "Promoting fertilizer use in Africa: current issues and empirical evidence from Malawi, Zambia and Kenya," IWMI Working Papers H042064, International Water Management Institute.
    6. Minde, Isaac J. & Jayne, Thomas S. & Crawford, Eric W. & Ariga, Joshua & Jones, Govereh, 2008. "Promoting Fertilizer Use in Africa: Current Issues and Empirical Evidence from Malawi, Zambia, and Kenya," Food Security International Development Policy Syntheses 54509, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    7. Mills, Bradford F., 1997. "Ex-ante agricultural research evaluation with site specific technology generation: the case of sorghum in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 125-138, May.
    8. Yanggen, David & Kelly, Valerie A. & Reardon, Thomas & Naseem, Anwar, 1998. "Incentives for Fertilizer Use in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review of Empirical Evidence on Fertilizer Response and Profitability," Food Security International Development Working Papers 54677, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    9. Genti Kostandini & Bradford F. Mills & Steven Were Omamo & Stanley Wood, 2009. ""Ex ante" analysis of the benefits of transgenic drought tolerance research on cereal crops in low-income countries," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 477-492, July.
    10. Suri, Tavneet & Tschirley, David L. & Irungu, Charity & Gitau, Raphael & Kariuki, Daniel, 2008. "Rural Incomes, Inequality and Poverty Dynamics in Kenya," Working Papers 202613, Egerton University, Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development.
    11. Heisey, Paul W. & Mwangi, Wilfred, 1996. "Fertilizer Use and Maize Production in Sub-Saharan Africa," Economics Working Papers 7688, CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
    12. Arega D. Alene & Abebe Menkir & S. O. Ajala & B. Badu-Apraku & A. S. Olanrewaju & V. M. Manyong & Abdou Ndiaye, 2009. "The economic and poverty impacts of maize research in West and Central Africa," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(5), pages 535-550, September.
    13. Michael Morris & Valerie A. Kelly & Ron J. Kopicki & Derek Byerlee, 2007. "Fertilizer Use in African Agriculture : Lessons Learned and Good Practice Guidelines," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 6650, December.
    14. Heien, Dale, 1988. "Consumer Welfare Measures: Some Comparative Results," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 1-9, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:64:y:2016:i:1:p:147-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley Content Delivery) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.